Comment

Comments on stories are a way for The Science Show listeners to contribute to and discuss the program.

Comments are moderated. Before you contribute, we recommend you read our house rules.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 12:20:10pm

Text

PreviousMessage

Nice report, real science on anatomy, rather than the genetic guesswork of evolution. Convergence is anatomical rather than genetic (from entirely unrelated species) and we can recognize the importance of anatomical similarities regardless of genetics. This is important in understanding genes as a means to standard ends (marsupials or placentals) as phenotypes.

My view is that DNA is entirely shaped by the environment and its conditions for structures, and genes are merely toggles shoved about to make suitable structures. Convergence is evidence that structure might even shape mutations, making them non-random.

Whether we like it or not, even if we build randomly on successful mutations, the complexity of advanced structures (and their convergence) looks like the assembly of a 747 in a whirlwind. Randomly upon success still requires considerable sequential intricacy, by chance, to stick and succeed, for the next mutation, by chance.

Scientific work is required into the exact mapping of each mutation from amoeba to human by chance, with data on the likelihood of each sequential intricacy by chance, and how long that would take. only generalities based on incomplete fossil records exist. You can read more about my ideas on this in my free book at http://thehumandesign.net I reckon the environment impresses upon DNA chemically to mutate structures, and mutations are not entirely random.

Please note that there is limit per post of 3,000 characters, including spaces, carriage returns and punctuation (about 500 words). Your email address will not be published.